If Johnson and Jeffries had fought close to their primes...

OK more specifically, you're assuming their fight didn't prove anything. Johnson clearly has the better skillset, shorter punches, better defense, stronger (you don't lose that), better infighting techniques etc. He dominated, laughed at and humiliated Jeffries in front of a hostile crowd. It was a complete domination.

Jeffries chin and stamina wasn't proven beyond doubt, he outlasted an old middleweight who outboxed him early could punch (for a middleweight) and an old cruserweight (who couldn't punch) who outboxed him early and beat a 5'8 brawler while leaning on them to tire them out. None of that makes him the master of long distance fights, against bigger heavier punchers he'll suffer as the fight goes on, no doubt about it.

 

Jeffries has a reputation as being incredibly durable and incredibly athletic. Hard gauging that on film but that's how he was seen at the time.

I did not assume anything about the fight.

I think in a finish fight Jeffries would have been and should be favoured. Maybe Johnson batters him into submission but I doubt it tbh.

 

There's no proof by modern standards of Jeffries being durable/athletic. In modern boxing we'd consider that he was picking on blown up opponents and not rate him because he struggled with said blown up and old opponents

All the film footage, prime and past prime indicates Jeffries was a poor boxer. Based on all footage of HW champs I'd rate the technique of Jeffries below Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz and Johnson. Significantly.

Even when we look at the accepted wrestling style of the time, Johnson showed to be more adept at that aspect over than Jeffries when they fought.

All sportsmen in any business hype up what they do, we can only look at the cold hard footage of him boxing and his actual physical feats and nothing is massively impressive under the spotlight.

 

No proof at all because his prime fights aren't visible to us.

I've never seen Sullivan fight so can't compare his technique.

Fitz and Corbett clear had talent but with the style they used it's so hard to consider them elite by standards today.

As I say with Jeffries I have just reputation and nothing to contradict it. With Johnson we have seen how good he is at picking off single shots and beating a man to the punch. I've not seen any footage to contradict the idea that Jeffries would have been favoured in a finish fight (which he clearly would have been) and although I accept Johnson could well beat him down, I just don't favour it over the alternative.

 

Before you can answer this, first you have to define Jim Jeffries, and define Jack Johnson.

I think there is general agreement between us regarding what Max Schmeling was, but we are not quite sure exactly what Jack Johnson was, and we only have a vague idea what Jim Jeffries was.

 

You see no way Johnson stops Jeffries, when in fact, he stopped Jeffries? Odd line of thinking there.

Now before you say oh he wasn't prime yada yada... He wasn't just coming off a KO lose where you could say.. oh that ruined him and anything after was proof he was ruined. His chin wasn't dented pre retirement. One of the last things to go as you age is strength, and to some degree durability. Just because Jeffries wasnt' prime... doesn't mean he was stronger in his prime, and he'd have to be significantly stronger to change the physical domination he imposed on jeff. I see nothing to indicate he was significantly stronger in his prime. The reality is, when somebody is totally outclassed and stops the other rather easily. To somehow think it would be totally different because a guy is 5 years younger, would require a lot of conjecture and extrapolation on your part. Just don't see it.

 

Johnson was 37 and fat when he fought Willard. Yet Jess was not able to manhandle him and could not break through his defences for 20 rds.Contrast that with Jeffries being a plaything in Johnson's hands:think

 

You've convinced me. I believe Tito batters Whittaker prime for prime as well.

 

I am impressed by both fighters based upon the available prime footage. Jeffries in training looks excellent deftly ducking, avoiding punches and stepping nimbly to his right turning his opponent. The guy looks like an animal in there and certainly had a great reputation for his heart and will to win. There really is no evidence that he was NOT an excellent if not an ATG hwt. Johnsons skills are much more apparent and obvious.

Prime vs prime I'd go with the all time great boxer....Jack Johnson. However I would never degrade the abilities of Jeffries. Losing to Johnson is no disgrace.

 

Worse than Sullivan on the light bag?

I am interested in comments on strength. What is the situation with the sport of weight lifting. is it common place for prime athletes to retire and then immediately return to lifting the same or better weights at advanced ages.

Even allowing for this, your strength deteriorates when you get tired, whether it is from running around or taking heavy shots. there is no way that the strength of the two fighters is the same in their actual fight than it would have been prime for prime.